This is a Wikipediauser page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LanceBarber.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

There's an official wikipedia welcome..Thanks for your comment. Yeah, I feel the same way about physics.. especially if you go to grad school, there a are a lot of exciting things you can do in the field. Danski14 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my Usertalk area and expect your input to be friendly and helpful, as I will be to you. I will keep this page clean, any reverting, changes or edits on this page will constitute vandalism and will be reported formally to Wikipedia. One user with his perceived "seniority" level reverted my hour's worth of learning and testing here on MY page. My purpose is to provide Wikipedia, it's editors, and the internet public with my experiences, my expertise, and research; while learning and growing; and NOT to have my time wasted by vandals.

Feel free to add to my "Greetings" or other sections for new suggestions on improving my Wiki techniques. Add new sections on specific Wiki-articles, infoboxes or templates or for multi-discussion topics. Thank you.

We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.

We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to enhance the sections if you feel information was lost. However, I do believe the table version is the most intutive to the casual reader. As I have stated, wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository of all information for niche groups. No list should have to have a "how to use the list" section as the top. I belive putting in table format fixes that issue and may make it of some interest to the casual reader. If you feel that information was lost though you are more than welcome to add it in! Thanks for your feedback. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you removed this page B-1 Lancer page on wingweb.co.uk from B-1 Lancer saying there were "errors in 7 photos on this webpage". I'm just wondering what the errors with the images are. I'm not seeing anything obvious. Thanks. -Fnlayson 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The pics were labeled as B-1B, incorrect, the photos were of the B-1A. I notified the webmaster of the incorrect captions. The photos were taken at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum of the A model. I work and volunteer at this Museum. I also added a "welcome" and note to the editor(IP address) who added the link. I will be more than happy to take a series of walk around photos of the A model and label them according for our B-1 Lancer article. I recently added the nose-shot. LanceBarber 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was simpler than I expected. ;) I think the last B-1A originally had a B-1B type blunt tail randome, but they switched it with an A style pointed one after it was sent to a museum. If you can take some detailed pictures to add to what's in the B-1 article, that'd be great. I'm not sure what to add though. Take it easy. -Fnlayson 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, The UK site fixed the captions, and I have added the link back into the B-1 article, with some extra cleanup. Have a great 4th! LanceBarber 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was interested to see the Denver pix were actually of a B-1A, I didn't realize that when I took them, and I will revise my own website accordingly. I might point out that the UK website lifted those pictures (and its article) from my Air Vectors website, which is OK, but then credited them as their own, which is not. BTW, if you check my photo pages on www.vectorsite.net I got some really good pix of a B-1B at the Cheyenne ANG airshow in 2006. MrG 4.225.213.110 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lance, regarding the cat change on the Boeing E-767, I sincerely dout that was vandalism. At mt request, User:Yasobara translated the Japanese E-767 page for us, providing most of the content currently in the this article. Most likely, he just got mixed up between the E-767 and 737 AEW&C, which is the Wedgetail. - BillCJ 07:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you for the explaination. It looked strange at first, as I was cleaning up all the boeing cat. nomenclatures. Thanks. LanceBarber 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

Hi there. I noticed you posted a problem on SineBot's talk page instead of mine. With regard to your problem, according to Wikipedia:Signatures, all posts to user talk pages, article talk pages, and other discussion pages should be signed. However, if you would rather the bot not sign posts to your talk page (or simply not sign your posts all together), you can opt out of signing by following the directions on the bot's user page. If you have any further problems, please feel free to contact me using my talk page. Cheers. =) --slakr 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words, Lance! I didn't create the template, but all the same ;) Please feel free to do whatever you feel should be done to the template that would improve it! — †WebdingerBLAH | SZ 03:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Presented to LanceBarber (talk·contribs) for an impressive body of contributions to aerospace-related articles on Wikipedia, and for your generous willingness to lend us your expertise in these areas, I award you this Original Barnstar. You, sir, are long overdue. ➪HiDrNick! 03:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That being said (I reviewed your contributions before looking at your question), I am surprised to say that I have to agree with Asams10 (talk·contribs) on this one, and here's why: I'm really a big fan of "less is more" when it comes to pictures. Unless a section is really pretty long, it can't hold more than two pictures without breaking up the paragraphs and making everything hard to read, particularly on bigger screens. In the cold war section on that article, there are already two pictures. The map of the flight path is really interesting and adds a bit to the section; I wouldn't want to replace that. I do see your point that the side-by-side comparison is helpful, but maybe it should be made in the section about the different models of the airplane, rather than in the section on the Cold War.

I want to be clear that I don't advocate Asams10's editing style. He is an edit warrior for sure; I, however, and you and most other editors prefer to take editing disputes to the talk page, and I hope you'll keep doing that and not get into a revert war. You were also right to seek a third opinion, which usually helps to put these things into perspective. I'm hardly the arbiter of what's best for the article here, and you might want to put a note in the article's talk page about the photo and see if you and some other editors can work it in somewhere. It's a nice picture for sure, and a nice piece for your museum. I used to work at the Omniplex Science Museum in Oklahoma City, which has a large air and space museum, so I know where you're coming from.

Anyway, I hope this helps. I'll look at the article some more and see if I can't find a better place for the picture. I'm not really too familiar with the material though, so I don't want to go mucking up the article. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Four things wrong with your request. Gurch is not an administrator, so cannot block users. Gurch has not edited for over two months. We don't block IP addresses indefinitely. We don't block users for vandalism without warning them first. – 86.140.177.115 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, what did you do? I redirected ACM to Association for Computing Machinery and fixed the improper "for other uses" banner at that top of that article because I thought that your intention was to have ACM redirected to Association for Computing Machinery. What you actually did, in putting "for other uses" banners at the tops of all those articles, has no precedent in guidelines and is not useful in the slightest. The purpose of "redirects here" and "other uses" banners is to assist in disambiguation, but since no user will ever arrive at any of those other articles by searching on "ACM", all those banners you put up are specious. I hope you won't leave it to me to go and revert them. This issue is wholly independent of whether or not "ACM" should redirect to "Association for Computing Machinery", a debate I have no strong feelings for one way or another, although I do believe that the Association for Computing Machinery was probably the first and best known ACM and the one with the most members, giving it at least some priority for the acronym. Robert K S 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you seem to be missing the point. Whether or not ACM redirects to ACM (disambiguation)--and I don't have a problem with that--all of the other ACM-like articles should not say "For other uses, see ACM (disambiguation)." Do you understand why? Robert K S 08:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need for wanting to be link-rich and giving users the privilege of exploring the encyclopedia and learning. But, unfortunately, doing so in arbitrary ways (such as with hatnotes) becomes unweildy and unmaintainable. Best just to write good articles with lots of wikilinks, and reserve hatnoting to its important function of disambiguation. Thanks for understanding and cheers, Robert K S 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As per a suggestion in the articles peer review I removed the section headers and replaced them with ; B-52H : <span id="B-52H"></span>The...... not to fix the TOC, but because it is fast becoming the standard for aircraft articles. This linking will still work on the other articles. Try it out -->B-52 Stratofortress#B-52H. If you have any specific examples of where this no longer works I'd be glad to check them over.

I have no personal experience in classic aircraft, but that is not a requirement for editing, in fact Wikipedia:No original research frown on this sort of thing.

"I think I have something to contribute to Wiki but you revesrting my work makes me suspicious of your intent." Two things to take a look at, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles:"If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." and Wikipedia:Assume good faith:"Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." And, yes, I understand that this applies to me as well.

Thanks for the Military Barnstar - it was surprising to see it, but I thank you. Yes, my username is from the satellite system I used to work on. I've added a bunch of units to the F-100s, not squadrons though (will get on that later - apparently the USAF likes their personnel to work *most* of the day... ;-) Projects I'd like to start relatively soon:

List of F-105 Users (too late - started and filled in ANG/AFRES users)

List of USAF A-7 users

List of USAF F-15 users

List of USAF F-4 users

I've also got some pictures of the F-100 Thunderbird the USAF museum has on display. I'll upload them to Commons and add them to the "Photo Gallery" on the F-100 user page. TDRSS 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BellH13PuebloMuseum.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your basis for saying that "consistancy has been established long ago for Related content", relative to such headers on place articles? Erie, Pennsylvania, Cleveland, Ohio, and Providence, Rhode Island are all FAs, with eleven navboxes at their bottoms but no such header; Erie and Cleveland both have county templates, and Providence would have one if the state weren't small enough that it didn't need them. Moreover, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline says nothing about such headers, and the external links header is specifically given as the final header in the outline. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! The big thing, in my mind, is that the AFB is a place, not an airplane, and I don't see anything on the page to which you link (or the main page of the WProject) saying that it covers air force bases. The reason that we have the second and third boxes on that page, as you likely noticed, is that it's a census-designated place and therefore obviously covered by the guidelines that I mentioned above. Please pardon if I came across as angry or something; I didn't mean to. I'm going to be gone for some days without Internet access, so if you'd like to see a third party in the discussion, you'll have to ask for it, and definitely don't expect me to be able to say anything at all :-) As you said to me: have a happy Thanksgiving! Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing the other side of this, don't know what the answer to Nyttend was, but will check his page. My problem may be slightly different - are you thinking that the navigational templates (such as the one in PAFB) need a different header or an additional one? This may need to be discussed or maybe just change them and see what happens. They are nearly all in the same boat. Every...single...navigational template. Student7 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see your point. I have noticed some nav boxes being placed higher in the article under the "appropriate" subsection. As you probably have seen, most editors have automatically placed them at the bottom of the article to avoid detracting from the article. Probably ought to be discussed at a higher Wikipedia forum. There are thousands of nav boxes in (perhaps) tens of thousands of articles! (Something to keep a bot busy for several happy nanoseconds! :) Except I'm not sure a bot could do it! Student7 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit from my page:"Bill, Why did u revert my tweak of the pics to eliminate the white space?? YOU like all the white space?? I tried 4 or 5 different combos with left/center/right and different px sizes. My fix was the simpliest and most logical. Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)" Hi Lance, thanks for writing, I fuly agree with the changes you put in but they don't work on some monitors and browsers, specifically the Mozilla Firefox. My edit is a bit cruder but it allowed the large operators list to be rewritten into two columns but that meant that the "operators map" had to be relocated. Your change actually "balloons" the image on Firefox to a huge picture. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

I'm with Bill. My PC's outdated-but-servicable browser is Firefox precursor Mozilla v.1.7.1 and my chosen screen size is 1024x768. That map's position and its 600px size bumped into and split up the list of specs on my screen. The Dec. 9 20:04 version works nicely for me.

Decreasing white space is a noble concept but is nearly impossible to achieve when the readers are using a wide assortment of operating systems, screen sizes and browser applications. The best one can do is shoot for the median... which is what, exactly? Current internet screen resolutions: 1024x768 54%, 1280 and up 26%, 800x600 14%. Current internet browsers: Firefox 36%, IE6 35%, IE7 21%. Current internet operating systems: WinXP 74%, Win2xxx 6.8% and falling, Vista 5% and climbing, Mac 4%, Linux 3.3%. All of these numbers depend on whose data is being examined. I got this lot from www.w3schools.com who compile and publish their access logs. At any rate, it appears that one can't really win the white space fight as there's no settled viewing standard. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's a case of everyone is right. The advantage of incorporating columns to condense "white" space probably is not possible whenever there are "overlapping" images that are crowding the same spaces. At the same time, one positive is that I have had a more in-depth look at the F-86 article and it certainly does require some revisions for {WP:Weight} as well as a rewrite for readability. FWIW, columns are possible in many instances and have been adopted for over a year in aviation articles, most notably in citation records as the {reflist|2} format. Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

Bink, I also use the 1024x768 but with Explorer 7, not sure why we don't see the same thing. Maybe Firefox is differential. I left another message for Bill under his talk, with an idea for a joint project to expand the operators section with more data, with a single column list and pic along the right side. THis should be okay with all browsers. I hope... Thanks, Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the single column can still be a good solution. I see it as an opportunity to display right-hand side images. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:F104C914usafMus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.

Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.

Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.

Hi there lance, I have removed the line spacing that you added to the individual Invincible class carriers. This is because it goes against the WP:MOS to do so. If you need a line break, use <br>. Any questions can be left on my talk page. Warm regards. Woody (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copied your comments to the talk page, and made a start on what was suggested. All of the place names have links somewhere in the article. Is a redlink to Boreas Corporation needed? Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I rewrote and formated most of the Al Hussein article. Some months ago, you labeled the talk page with a "rewrite needed" tag. Could you please reasses the page?. Thank you. DagosNavy 11:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lance. I see that you have added a link to the description of the long-dead Hidden Valley ski area to the St. Mary's, Colorado page, and a link there from Estes Park, Colorado entitled "Hidden Valley". While I know that these were all well-meant edits, they are incorrect. I'm quite familiar with all of these areas; in fact, my wife and both of her sisters were ski instructors at Hidden Valley in the late 70s and early 80s. Hidden Valley is nowhere near St. Mary's - it's on Trail Ridge Road near Estes Park. The defunct ski area at St. Mary's was called St. Mary's Glacier. It's also featured on the website that has the writeup on Hidden Valley, but they are very different places. Happy Editing! Merenta (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the original pages and added merge tags. The protection expires on Wednesday. Simply south (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was out of town for the weekend so I didn't see the request until just now (Monday morning). I see that the proposed destination page is currently protected, so it appears that the immediate problem is being handled. I'm reviewing the discussions that have occurred so far. Slambo(Speak) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now we've got a complete mess, with photos of the tube station on the Balham railway station article, and vice-versa. This is utterly ridiculous, and adds fuel to the idea of having a single article to put both in context. --RFBailey (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lance! I noticed that you have changed several articles and re-written the official name of missions from their mission name, to "STS-xxx Shuttle-ISS mission". While I can understand why you may have added this, please note that per the manual of style, the bold item in the opening sentence is the name of the article (which in the case of mission articles, would be the official NASA name of the mission). There is a standard used for Wikipedia articles on shuttle missions, under the WikiProject spaceflight, and the official name of any shuttle mission is simply its designation, the term "Shuttle-ISS mission" is not used by anyone, (as you can see if you'll check any of the references - missions are never referred to in this manner by sources). Per the project: "Space Missions should begin with the bolded name of the mission, followed by a simple description of the mission."

Also so you're familiar with it, in every mission article, the project standardizes the opening sentence to clearly state if the mission is an ISS mission or not, so the very first sentence will say "is a Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station", which, for a reader unfamiliar with the subject, is more helpful than to immediately use the acronym "ISS", which not every reader will understand. Please, please do not take this as criticism, as you've made many excellent and helpful additions to a huge variety of pages, but the lead sentence for shuttle missions is something that was decided on by a number of project members, and standardization is used for mission articles. I have corrected most of them, but if you notice any I may have missed and would fix them, that would be great! Thank you so much, Ariel♥Gold 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lance! Thanks so much for your reply. Yes, I too noticed that some of the older articles (that haven't been reviewed by project folks) were done rather haphazardly, without the proper leads. I also understand the reasons that an aircraft's name is bolded along with its "common name", so I had no doubts that you were working towards standardization. However, a few things are different when it comes to shuttle missions, first, NASA does not call them "STS-XXX Shuttle-ISS Mission", they call them by their official designation, (simply the STS-###) as does Wikipedia when naming the articles. Second, especially with the ISS missions, the information is given immediately in the opening sentence ("was a space shuttle mission to the International Space Station"), which lets the reader know right away what the mission's purpose/objective was, so to say "shuttle mission" in bold, and then repeating the same information in the sentence, is not really necessary. Understandably, the Mir missions were done differently, and actually this was because there used to be a template used that standardized the opening of all shuttle missions, but it was deleted in TFD many months ago, so the administrator who updated the files linking to that template, not being part of the WikiProject, did not know that the template provided a measure of standardization, and simply filled in what they thought was appropriate. For many of these, When going through them all, I went ahead and added to the lead sentence the main objective of the mission, to make it clear in the lead what the purpose was, which improves them for a general reader. I really personally appreciate all the time you went to, especially with the talk page work! I have done that as I've come across them, but did not ever take the time to work through each mission one by one, and your work there was simply excellent! Keep up the excellent flight article work! Ariel♥Gold 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, LanceBarber. I need to download more help files, replying to you is about as hostile a process as I could imagine. I've already had encouragement and offers of help from MilborneOne. Last night I made a big mess of all the refs, but luckily did a preview and trial and error put it back to a reasonable state. I'm on pay-per-minute dialup, and no income, so unwilling to spend much time online. PeterWD (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk text above was posted in error to A-26 survivors talk page, so moved it here. PeterWD (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A-26 survivors page. I have used the form from Citation Templates for cite book rather than cite journal, just tried id= and other variations but none of them cause the ISBN number to display on the final page. PeterWD (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming A-26 Survivors, and notes about citations, that I'll revisit soon (I tend to splash and dash with this dialup connection). Meanwhile, perhaps somebody

should look at the Citation Templates page, that says |isbn=123456 is a valid format. PeterWD (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got big problems with re-doing specifications in the On Mark Marksman page. Existing specifications and citations templates used are different to those in A-26 Invader and the Specifications template page, and mixing templates doesn't work. I'll try to use one form of each, but which are the preferred ? PeterWD (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not know which is preferred. See your Talk page under "Spec" subsection for details. Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:KB29sRefueling.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wings over the Rockies Museum article is under challenge by another editor for copyright violation. Hopefully, you can help resolve the issue. DonFB (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IF you own that website, just as a formality, can you confirm by creating a page or somehow adding text that shows us you are the creator and owner of the page? Not that I dont trust you, just for formality purposes. IF you can, can you give me the link? Chrislk02Chris Kreider 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

an you also mail the link to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with your statement that you are releasing the content for use? Please make it out to my attention if possible. Chrislk02Chris Kreider 04:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You dont even need to edit the page, just send the email to the address above from the email address listed as pagemaster on the page cited. Chrislk02Chris Kreider 04:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi~! I call to your attention with regards to this image, which is deemed as a posed shot for a Malaysia Airlines commercial ad more than that of a self-work. Question is, how am I going to put that into the image page and mark it for speedy deletion. Thanks and cheers. --User talk:Dave1185

Also, good work on questioning "notable" people. I've been doing a bit of that myself. I suspect that there is a lot of abuse of these lists, either for self-promotion, or people listing their friends or cats. Plazak (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Presented to LanceBarber (talk·contribs) for significant and tireless contributions to articles pertaining to technology, transportation and applied sciences. Keep up the great work! -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bunch of pages changed by *someone* to match Wikipedia naming standards - apparently like-minded countries use similiar unit titles. While the 13 SWS probably doesn't qualify under that, I was trying to make things standardized... since my day job in the AF involves standardization, its a hard habit to break! TDRSS (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for uploading File:H-21CWingsMsueum.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

Hey Lance! Could you please go put the source information on the pages for the three images you uploaded? They need to have the URL of the NASA page you got them from to show that they are indeed, NASA images, so they are not deleted.

Hey Lance, I'm going to be working on getting that article to good article status, and perhaps even featured status, and since all of the information in that list you added is already given in the infobox with refs, I'm going to go ahead and remove that, since it isn't prose, and articles that have redundant info like that sometimes get picked at when reviewed, so I'm just anticipating what might come up with the review. It is nothing personal, I hope you know, but I think there may already be issues due to the other types of lists that are in the article, and they may need to be put into prose (like the mission background stats, etc.). Hope you understand! Ariel♥Gold 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - TrevorMacInniscontribs 06:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nelson Aircraft, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://home.comcast.net/~aeroengine/Nelson.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, targeted you 'cos you're the Wikiproject Aviation guy with a declared interest in aircraft museums - not a popular interest?. Today I planned to start from scratch an article for the TAM museum, using recent experience on Havana and Rio museums. Found an article on TAM museum on Portuguese Wikipedia, grabbed a copy of source, translated via Google, then pasted into my sandbox. A few basic tweaks, bit more aircraft data, and it's approaching a reasonable state. I'd appreciate your comments on the method I've used, and any advice, general or specific.PeterWD (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for response. The wide pic was the result of searching Commons, and I just slapped it in at the top temporarily. I plan to use a museum infobox - shouldn't that be a 'standard' practice? The dodgy text is almost unchanged from the crude translation, aircraft data was priority, and I'll be re-writing it all, especially the restaurant work mention. PeterWD (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update - knocked it into shape, unsure of citing Portuguese Wikipedia, other Portuguese external links, also co-ordinates, but hopefully other editors will deal with that stuff? (No-one has yet edited anything on the Havana article I did on 11 October).PeterWD (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your tweaks and advice. As a 'green' Wikipedian, I didn't realise until yesterday that any foreign language articles identified as equivalent are listed below the toolbox in the left column. Thanks also for tweaking the Havana article. (Sits back, awaiting other editors' actions).PeterWD (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure, if you are the right person or if this is the right place to discuss this, but I hope so. If not, please advise. Well, for months now it is virtually impossible for me to reach the http://www.defenseimagery.mil/ website, full of (mostly) older US Forces photos, good for many an article. I know of other wikipediea/media users having the same problems. Can anybody offer any help? Cheers --(talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be creating the TAC gallery on commons shortly. I believe the TAC gallery on the page consisted of one emblem anyway. Revert or do whatever you believe is correct as I was led to believe that, generally, galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia. Take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:MercuryBPparachuteTest.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

Thank you for uploading File:MercuryBPwaterTest.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

Hello, there's a discussion regarding article naming (here) of Soyuz / Salyut articles, and we are having difficulty reaching a consensus.. maybe you could help out; thanks. Mlm42 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. Several users have asked us to reactivate WikiProject Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. Many articles about Colorado need to be updated and many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs some new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you would like to remain an active member of WikiProject Colorado, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. If you cannot help right now, you can go to inactive status and then reactivate your status later. Thanks for any help you can provide. Yours aye, Buaidh 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Noticed you have an interest in NORAD. Did some work on that page the other day, and have tied in the history to how the Air Defense Command eventually became today's NORAD, writing pages about the various units and organizations of ADTAC as well. Also wrote up a few things about the Joint Surveillance System and the old ADC radar stations of the Cold War. Enjoy... Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Was a little puzzled by your invite to join the discussion about merging rocketry and spaceflight projects. The discussion was closed 10 days ago on the spaceflight discussion page. Is there something else going on in another location I overlooked?

Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia, and thank you very much for the barnstar. For each article we do, we seem to get ten more requests, but I think we are making progress. Keep up the good work! Your aye, Buaidh 00:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a connection between the ideal gas law and the Max Q articles that would warrant See Also links between the two. Could you explain that to me? Khakiandmauve (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the more natural place to link to is dynamic pressure, rather than Max Q, but I'm not sure that's a good fit, either. Note that the dynamic pressure article already includes a link in the text back to the ideal gas law article.Khakiandmauve (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Colorado[edit]

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Colorado, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, LanceBarber. Please check your email – you've got mail!It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Hello, Lance... Buaidh referred me to you in hopes you can guide me a bit on some editing. (He referred me to JoeSperrazza too, and I left this message there, but haven't heard back yet.) As I told Buaidh, I've been attempting to do some cleanup on pages (e.g., Dedisse Park and Bergen Park) and discovered Denver was credited with Elk Meadow Park, so fixed that. That latter page needs work! They all do-- but Elk Meadow was so different I almost didn't know how to start! Is there a good pattern/model/template that should be followed for pages like these? (Parks, communities?)

I'm trying to get back in to editing, but am not up on the gadgets. Or the lingo. I joined WP:Colorado, and would like to focus on content for parks and history, but may need some backup or cleanup until I get up to speed. Buaidh says you need a page on Jefferson County Open Space, and maybe I can get to that sometime. If you could take a look at the Elk Meadow piece and jump in or give me suggestions, it'd be appreciated.

Also, is anyone else working on Jeffco history-- could that be a subproject or task force? Just a thought. I also suggested (on WP:COLO somewhere) a page listing CCC projects in Colorado...

Main response is on your talk page. No major projects at this time that I know of. There are about 5-6 of us that are active on WP Colo, and we have met this past spring for beer and pizza at a local establishment up in Arvada. Thank you for joining us. Cheers, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, missed this note, so added another question for you on my talk page. Here's yet another: How to handle Bergen Park (park) vs. Bergen Park (community). Would seem there's not enough material--at least accessible to me--to warrant 2 pages, and I wonder if it's okay to roll them together and accommodate both. Using subheads could organize info for clarity, I would think; main content would be park, with brief description of community named after park. As the existing page is pretty empty and you suggested I work on it, maybe I'll take a stab at it when I can, and let you weigh in. Sound okay? --Araucana (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I implemented the list/table we were discussing, as it seemed you didn't have any major problems with it. This a.m., I fixed some links that went to the wrong parks, and noted that two of them (Bell Park and Little Park) had redirects. Should those be removed, given that there isn't just one park, or should it wait until there are pages for the duplicates)? If so, I'm not sure how to do that. Also, I've made a start (offline) at material for a JCOS page, fyi. --Araucana (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vanishings! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1(talk) 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:137thSWSGreeleyCO.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi LanceBarber! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

What are your strengths on Wikipedia?

Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?

What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.

Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Thanks for the History Barnstar and the review. It turned out that Eleazer Oswald was a notable journalist as well as an artillerist. (BTW: The printed books were the primary sources while the on-line material was used to fill in family and legal history.) It's fun to sometimes discover that the soldiers were more than one-dimensional. In a recent article about Edward Mathew (British general), it turned out there was a Jane Austen connection. Who knew? Djmaschek (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The museum category is correctly placed on the redirect for the museum. The airport is not a museum, it just contains one. The same goes for it being a casino, it is not one but has one on premises. Also the Nevada template is not called for since it is not listed in the template and it does not help with navigation to related articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the restructure to the Yule marble. The opening had become to lengthy and beyond the description of what Yule marble is. The background section is a good addition. I have worked on the article so much that I have lost objectivity for the broad scope when I started. So a fresh pair of eyes is always good to have. OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good morning. You believe that each building in the list of Yule marble structures requires a reference. Is this correct? I ask for I do not believe such referencing is needed because each structure is referenced in the published books "City of Stone" and or "Marble" which are cited at the beginning of the article. Being in a published source, they met the definition of verifiable and are not original research. OneHistoryGuy (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

At first yes, but then I found the ref at the beginning of the section noted all the buildings which was perfect. Any additions to the table can be individual ref'd. Thank you for hard work. Cheers, Lance...LanceBarber (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I moved the Charles Mynn Thruston disambiguation page to Thruston. It seemed like the best way to keep the two persons named Charles Mynn and also incorporate other persons named Thruston. I hope this action was OK with you. Let me know if not. Djmaschek (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed some- but not all- of your disambiguation hatnotes (dab lines at start of articles) like this one.

The dab lines are only required if it's likely that a person *may* have arrived expecting a different subject. "VC10" redirects to "Vickers VC10", so there's a "redirect" notice there (because someone typing VC10 may have been after something else). For similar reasons, the VC-10 aircraft squadron article also has a hatnote linking to the dab page (again, someone may have typed "VC-10" looking for another use).

But they're not required for (e.g.) Commodore Max Machine because it's unlikely that anyone could have arrived there accidentally for that reason. Ditto even the Korg VC-10.

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for getting this out so late, but this is all Pharos' fault. Please blame everything on Pharos.

That said, this message is just to let you know that we're having a photo hunt for Wiki Loves Monuments at 11:00 in the morning of Saturday the 15th in Boulder, probably somewhere around CU, though the exact location hasn't yet been decided. Since you have previously attended or expressed interest in other meetups in the area, hopefully you might be able to come.

Please sign up as soon as possible if you're interested; we'd love to have you along to help postpone the squirrel apocalypse. Or at least get some decent images. -— Isarra༆ 05:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi LanceBarber, I just removed a large number of links that you added in April 2011 which led to copyrighted material hosted on Youtube. I just wanted to give you a heads up that per WP:ELNEVER, editors here are never permitted to add links to copyright-violating material like that. As far as I understand it, the rationale is that this kind of edit opens Wikipedia to legal consequences under the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement. Anyway I've removed the links for now so there's no problem but I just wanted to mention it so you could avoid that in the future. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and the c/r link. No problem. Lance .... LanceBarber (talk)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Services Museum until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I am One of Many (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revival – Exclusive Bonus DVD until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I found your name on the Aviation History task force page. Trying to clarify whether Chuck Yeager ever got promoted to Maj Gen (ret) in 2005 or at any other time. There are a number of news reports that describe him in passing as a retired Major General, but they could have gotten that info from old versions of Wikipedia. I've found where Congress authorized the president to promote him to Maj Gen (Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, 108th Congress [1]), but I don't know whether the president/military command ever actually made the promotion. I'm assuming that if he had, there would be a press release or statement from the president's office somewhere. Dezastru (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)